Op Monday 12 March 2007, schreef Con Kolivas: > On Tuesday 13 March 2007 01:14, Al Boldi wrote: > > Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > > The higher priority one always get 6-7ms whereas the lower priority > > > > > one runs 6-7ms and then one larger perfectly bound expiration > > > > > amount. Basically exactly as I'd expect. The higher priority task > > > > > gets precisely RR_INTERVAL maximum latency whereas the lower > > > > > priority task gets RR_INTERVAL min and full expiration (according > > > > > to the virtual deadline) as a maximum. That's exactly how I intend > > > > > it to work. Yes I realise that the max latency ends up being longer > > > > > intermittently on the niced task but that's -in my opinion- > > > > > perfectly fine as a compromise to ensure the nice 0 one always gets > > > > > low latency. > > > > > > > > I think, it should be possible to spread this max expiration latency > > > > across the rotation, should it not? > > > > > > There is a way that I toyed with of creating maps of slots to use for > > > each different priority, but it broke the O(1) nature of the virtual > > > deadline management. Minimising algorithmic complexity seemed more > > > important to maintain than getting slightly better latency spreads for > > > niced tasks. It also appeared to be less cache friendly in design. I > > > could certainly try and implement it but how much importance are we to > > > place on latency of niced tasks? Are you aware of any usage scenario > > > where latency sensitive tasks are ever significantly niced in the real > > > world? > > > > It only takes one negatively nice'd proc to affect X adversely. > > I have an idea. Give me some time to code up my idea. Lack of sleep is > making me very unpleasant.
You're excited by RSDL and the positive comments, aren't you? Well, don't forget to sleep, sleeping makes ppl smarter you know ;-)
pgpg8yLZmNOn3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
